Archive for the ‘No Islam In Terror’ Category

Three very important National Security documents came out lately. You would think at least one of them would mention Islam in connection with terror, right? No! You cannot fight what you either do not know or will not acknowledge and as long as Obama and the left are in control we cannot win the war on terror because they refuse to accept its Islamic roots.

Once again it is the international media that exposes President L-Dopa. When reason, logic and objective reality become a relic of the past, then anything goes. No snow? It’s global warming? Too much snow? it’s global warming!

“Two new documents laying out the Obama administration’s defense and homeland security strategy over the next four years describe the nation’s terorist enemies in a number of ways, but fail to mention the words Islam, Islamic or Islamist.” (more here)

Over one-third of the attempted and successful Jihad attacks on American soil took place in 2009. This sharp uptick comes at a time when a soft sharia has been imposed across media and government agencies that talking about jihad and its root causes in Islamic texts and teachings is forbidden. At the same time, there is a global initiative at the UN and elsewhere to muzzle critics of Islam, criminalizing even honest discussion of the Islamic doctrines that terrorists use to justify jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

How many countries have to slide into the Islamic abyss, how many women have to be burned,
sold, trafficked, shrouded? How many Christians, Jews, non-believers have to be persecuted, murdered, humiliated? How many freedoms surrendered? How many 9/121s, 7/7s, 3/11s ………………before Freedom loving peoples push back, say no and back it up with action? It’s not Obama’s fault he’s president, it’s ours. This is how far we have fallen off the path of individual rights, capitalism, Constitutional America.

The Department of Homeland Security made public last week, the 108-page Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. The report uses the term “terrorist” 66 times, “al Qaeda” five times, and “violent extremism” or “extremist” 14 times. The report calls on the U.S. government to “actively engage communities across the United States” to “stop the spread of violent extremism.”

But in describing terrorist threats against the U.S. and the ideology which motivates terrorists, the review – just like a document from the Pentagon, the Quadrennial Defense Review – does not mention the words, “Islam,” “Islamic,” or “Islamist” not even once.

“Although the homeland security official in charge of developing the review insists it was not a deliberate decision,” as reported by the Washington Times, “the document is likely to reignite a debate over terminology in the U.S.-led war against al Qaeda that has been simmering through two administrations.”

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman told reporters in a conference call that “there was not an active choice” to avoid using terms derivative of Islam. But as Mr. Heyman continued to speak, he never once referred to any terrorists as “Islamists.”

Under American law, every four years the US Defence Department must present to Congress a comprehensive review of the security threats and challenges to America. The security picture presented in the review provides the justification for planning and creating the appropriate military forces and capabilities. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is supposed to be a non-partisan and objective strategic document – free of partisan politics. After all, the duty to protect the nation and its citizens is supposed to take a higher priority than subsidies to labour unions, or hand-outs to party loyalists.

[…]

The 128-page Defence Review says some important things. It outlines the problems with maintaining the US military’s technological lead over potential adversaries. It discusses the need to counter terrorism. The threat to Western cyber systems is noted. The proliferation of Russian high-tech anti-aircraft missiles around the world is noted as a problem.

However, it’s not what is in the document that surprises the reader – it’s what was left out. There presence of two elephants in their living room apparently escaped the notice of American’s top civilian and military leaders. Islamic radicalism does not receive any mention whatsoever in the American Defence Review and the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is mentioned in only one general sentence at the end of a document (page 101). To put this lack of discussion in proportion, contrast this non-discussion with other security issues mentioned in the document. For example, the security effects of climate change are highlighted and discussed in depth in eight pages of the document.

I would not have thought it possible that one could publish a book-length assessment of America’s security challenges and responses and NOT address the problem of Islamic radicalism or the Iranian bomb – but that’s just what Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen have done. From this one can draw one of two possible conclusions: these men are really, really stupid (not very likely), or they have deliberately minimised the current security threats to please the Obama administration and support the President’s desire to cut defence spending. The smart money is on the latter explanation.

Obama’s plan is to spend, spend, and spend on domestic entitlement and welfare programmes. His next budget contains a deficit of $1.6 trillion – almost as much as Bill Clinton’s whole government budget of 2000. But Obama is under pressure to make some budget cuts somewhere. Clearly the massive domestic budget with really necessary items like a $35 billion General Motors bailout can’t be touched without offending essential groups such as the United Auto Workers Union.

However, President Obama HAS finally found the place to cut waste – defence! In late January he demanded that Congress cut $2.5 billion from the defence budget for the purchase of C-17 transport planes. Obama declared the money for military transport was “waste, pure and simple”.